Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19
results. >> we are ranked 37th in the world. >> within the united states although medicare has been more successful at cost control and private insurers have been, the great thing about america is we have everything, all possible assistance here. the veterans health administration which is true socialized medicine, the doctors are government employees, is incredibly efficient relative to the rest of the health-care system. >> you did a calculation that showed a health care system, the best in europe or france or germany, we would have no deficit in the baby boom demographics. >> everyone else -- canada is a single payer system but not socialized medicine. medicare for everybody. and is complicated. but it is a mixture of public provision, public health insurance but much heavier hand of government, the same cost as the canadian system but spectacularly good outcomes relative to anybody and britain has a system which is pure socialized medicine and the outcomes are a little better than ours. the cost is 40% better. all of these, if we were able to emulate these things we would be able --
for medicare, medicaid and long-term social security. the mere fact were discussing those things is good. in terms of the votes, if it's going to be a deal they will be those from both sides. reality is -- these two guys come in the president and the speaker had so with one another before. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck section in 2012. they came to another big deal about shutting down the government in april 2011, cutting discretionary spending the billions of dollars. he came to another in the debt ceiling deal as well which is a $2.2 trillion long-term deduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. they need to take it to another level. this is a bigger, more complex problem and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations. they're going to be together for the next four years. the president won the election, the republicans on the house and frankly are not likely to lose in a midterm election and a second-year presidency. john boehner is speaker for four years and hopefully this is the beginning of a productive relationship. >> host: unison news last week
, medicare and medicaid. medicare and medicaid in ensure that one-third of all americans. they represent about 20% of our budget, and they are a real challenge to us. because untouched, unamended, medicare will run out of money in 12 years. that is scary. because with so many americans who count on it, almost 50 million americans, and the number is growing. yesterday, in america, 10,000 people reached the age of 65. it happened today and it will happen tomorrow. it will happen the next day for 18 years. these people are paid in and fully expects the protection which they have invested in to be there. and it has to be there. so we need to take an honest look at medicare. i happen to believe the paul ryan approach was not the right approach, to say the least. i thought that his idea of premium support capping the amount was put into it would've raised the cost of medicare insurance on many seniors, and i think it was unworkable and certainly didn't support it. some have suggested raising the medicare retirement age, eligibility age i should say. and i've trouble with that. my trouble is th
't be sound and solvent for future generations. for example, medicare's hospital services program is in serious financial trouble. in a report this spring, the medicare trustees cautioned that the trust fund that covers the program's hospital services will be depleted and consequently insolvent by 2024. the fact is, we can accomplish entitlement reform in a way that doesn't change programs for people at or near retirement yet ensures that those programs will be there for our children and grandchildren down the road when they need them. republicans and democrats should be able to come together, as should older and younger americans, because thoughtful entitlement reform is in everybody's interest. and, finally, we need to control our spending. our federal deficit for the fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion, and our national debt is now more than $16 trillion. that is unsustainable. more revenues from tax reform and economic growth combined with entitlement reform and controlling spending will reduce our deficit and our debt, and there is no question that we can do it. for example, w
than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the election, the republicans won the house and frankly are not likely to lose the election in the second
, which everybody knows we've got to do if we're going to keep medicare going. i don't think anybody in this body doesn't know that within ten years it will be broke unless we make the appropriate structural reforms now. the president continues to call for a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but in practice he's offering up all tax increases and no spending discipline. he has offered up nothing meaningful on entitlement reform. the proposal put forward last week by secretary geithner was embarrassing. i happen to like secretary geithner. i stood up for him under some trying circumstances on the finance committee before he was approved by the senate. and i did it because i believe he's a hard worker. i believe he's an intelligent man. and i personally like him. but my gosh, if i was the treasury secretary and the president gave me that plan to go up and show it to the leader of the house, the speaker of the house, i would have said, no, mr. president, you can't do this. this is an insult. if the president said you've got to do this for me, i would say, i think it's better for me
read to the will to you and your stand medicare/medicaid and long-term security drive the budget. the fact we discuss them is good. if it will be a deal there will have to be votes from both sides. the president and the speaker have dealt with one another before. on extending the bush tax cuts they did not shut down the government and cut discretionary spending and budget for the exchange in the increase but but of the debt ceiling this is more complex. and the beginning of the serious -- series of negotiations. the president is the president he won the election but the republicans won the house and not likely with the midterm election. hopefully this is the beginning of a good productive legislation's been iq made headlines to say go-ahead extend the tax cuts and later fight to extend for wealthier americans. does that change your position? >> what is the right thing to do but the two sides agreed they don't to raise taxes on 98% we should agree to take them out of the line of fire. awac surely come to our side but if they are worried politicians that they don't have confidence
for medicare by extending the cap on medicare and that time medicare had a cap but all of the other taxes that were in there were primarily related to use or consumption. it met the criteria established by the republicans in the senate and the republicans in the house. we presented that to the committee as a whole, to the participating members of the republicans that were participating in the process on the house and the senate side as a whole, and i have a specific conversations with both gramm individually and gingrich individually, and it was agreed that we had met the criteria. i am not positive of the numbers, but i believe it was something like 375 or $380 million in cuts, and 120, 125 million in revenue in the first package. roughly 3-1. the white house was under the assumption that this was acceptable. as part of the process agreed to it. the president goes out. we sat down with the democrats and confirmed to them we had a deal. tom foley and george mitchell went back to their much larger dabble. the larger gaggle of the members of the house and the senate and finally, the leaders
be conceptualized and dealing with medicare premium reimbursement issues -- what is the one singular issue that you're focusing on as far as the top 2%? [talking over each other] >> what is remarkable about this, and this was said on the sunday shows, in this day, in 2012, how-to people are aware of what was a issue that happened in september. the unemployment rate, while it has come down, is still higher when george w. bush extended it. .. now he has also said he is not wedded to every detail of his plan, that he will compromise and he looks forward to concrete proposal that addressed the question of revenue for sale. they are open to revenue. the fate of the raise tax rates on the wealthiest americans. it's mathematically impossible to receive targets necessary or balance in a way that only closes loopholes and tax deductions. both economically -- >> that's been your earlier point. >> depending on the proposal you're talking about. it is either possible to do it if you stick it to them about class and race taxes on the middle class you can tax the wealthiest americans from having to contribute mo
bit off of medicare reimbursement. we have to think very seriously about changing the way the process works. on the other side, noting that they did a moment ago, medicare, fundamental reform is essential. on the other side, let's pretend revenue increases because for increasing growth. we need real increases in revenues measured on a static basis and i think got to recognize that. if a possible if we can't do the whole job it is a scorecard of zeros. we still could have pay-as-you-go debit on a scorecard or restart, which would tell us in years further down the road we have to do to revenues or entitlements to save money that may be awake coupled with inadequate sequester to make the process work going forward. the last point i would make, in fact my old boss, leon panetta, who said with great frequency, our nation responds to problems either through the leadership or in crisis. .. >> michael? >> thank you. i am sure that had a lower number than lockout. if i didn't, i certainly should have. maybe the administration gave congressional staff lower numbers. but it was not right if that
now. stakes couldn't be higher. more than $7 trillion of tax cuts in medicare payments and programs for unemployed will expire in just 27 days am today. adding to these spending cuts and tax increases or sequestration, cuts of almost 10% of both defense and nondefense, and cuts of 2% medicare. it would be hard to find a single american not affected by these changes. you all know how serious this is. you believe, like me, that we can do it. to prevent fiscal crisis. but the answer is not just extend all of these tax cuts and delight all of these cuts. that is not the answer. this is an opportunity, an opportunity to commit to balance plan, to bring our national debt back down to sustainable levels. the united states, i believe come is at a critical juncture. we can come together, show the world we are still responsible actors. we can prove that america is still the leader of a global economy. people are watching. do we still have it. or, we can let a instruction is an and stagnation turn this country that we all love so much into a second place state. i spent a few days last fall mee
in need and championed programs like public education, social security, unemployment insurance, medicare, medicaid, income for low-income people with disabilities just the tip of the iceberg. part of his success in protecting and growing these programs was speaker o'neill's talent in forging political consensus. we heard that describe already, is superb political instincts and being a pragmatic dealmaker which allowed him to take on the day-to-day responsibilities of holding his caucus together while advancing his commitment to liberalism. we heard the speaker, reference speaker o'neill and his popular saying that all politics is local and believe you me that was my first advice in coming to this body and my advice to this very day. he had over 50 years of combined public service in the massachusetts state house and the house of representatives. a true public servant in every sense of the word. because of his dedicated service i am sure my colleagues will join in a bipartisan round of support for the naming of this federal building after thomas tip o'neill. i yield back my time to the ge
the medicare guarantee for our seniors and the next generation? well, those big questions were discussed, argued and clear positions were taken, and voters went to polling places on election day to render their verdict. and, mr. president, the outcome was clear. candidates who stood up for the middle class won. candidates who advocated for our seniors came out ahead. and in exit polls across the country, voters made very clear that they strongly supported the idea that the wealthy should pay higher tax rates and their fair share. and everyone -- democrat, republican, independent, wealthy, low income, middle class, students, workers, retirees, older, younger and inbetween -- everyone, everyone supports extending the tax cuts for the middle class. nobody thinks that the taxes should go up for 98% of our workers and 97% of our small business owners. so, mr. president, this ought to be easy. the american people just weighed in supporting a continuation of the bush tax cuts for the middle class. it's a policy democrats and republicans agree on. and it would cushion millions of middle-class fa
to our debt problem. believe it or not, republicans who voted to turn medicare into a voucher program in the name of deficit reduction, support adding to the deficit with high-end tax cuts. in rhode island at least, those are lousy priorities when it comes to deficit reduction. we should let the tax cuts at the top expire for reasons also of fairness. loopholes and special provisions allow many super high income earners to pay lower tax rates than many middle-class families. according to the nonpartisan congressional research service, 65% of individuals earning a million dollars or more annually pay taxes at a lower rate than median income taxpayers making $100,000 or less. 65%, nearly two-thirds, of individuals earning over a million dollars a year actually pay a lower tax rate than median income taxpayers do. that is a tax system that has turned upside-down and needs to be fixed. earlier this year, a majority of senators voted to advance my "paying a fair share act," the buffett rule bill to ensure that multimillionaire earners pay at least a 30% effective federal tax ray. the rate
of reimbursement to providers under the medicare program. unless we repeal that law, we will have to once again patch the law as we have done for many years now with a so-called medicare doc fix, and i think the time has come to go ahead and repeal the law. the fifth item i wanted to just mention is that congress needs to give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling. at the same time, congress should retain congress' right to disapprove of that increase, but secretary geithner has made a proposal to the congress which i believe makes good sense. it is based upon the arrangement that was agreed to that senator mcconnell had put forward in the 2011 debt ceiling crisis that we all lived through. obviously, this is a significant to-do list, and i don't intend to speak about all these items. i would like to focus my remarks on the need for congress to pass the extenders package of tax provisions. i feel this has gotten too little attention. it deserves to be dealt with as a major component of the reaction or the response to the so-called fiscal cliff. this is in fact the family and busines
of the middle class, it voids our promise to seniors with steep cuts to social security and medicare, all to pay for even more handouts to the rich. at least we now know where they stand. republicans have sought to cover by invok invoking erskine bowle' name. he has disavowed their plan. we're glad to see the republicans join in the negotiating process. while their proposal may be serious, it's also a nonstarter. they know any agreement that raises taxes on the middle class in order to protect more unnecessary giveaways to the top 2% is doomed from the start. it won't pass. democrats won't agree to it. president obama wouldn't sign such a bill. a understanand the american peot support it. that's in all the polls in the press this morning. the american people are tired of budget-busting giveway is to ths to the wealthiest 2%. the american people want a balanced deal. it must be higher taxes on the richest of the rich. republicans would be wise to keep that in mind as negotiations move forward. we're willing to compromise but we also will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills twill mill
to say we are going to cut medicare beneficiaries. he then went on and i think in the end, you can't be president and not be a realist. he said isn't tenable to not cut them because they are driving the budget deficit. the whole entitlement issue is the real core of this problem. a taxing issue, yes. the pyrotechnics. there's the struggle between the republican and democratic view. they all know it's the entitlement issue. so if you, but some some sort of fix, trajectory to make it somehow stable is the real issue. you have something from the boat. >> your books are ultimately about the power, how it's used, squandered, built spirits of the subtext of these events is how life works. and my favorite sentence in the price of politics is when you meet friends -- need friends comments to late to make them. tell us what she learned about washington and life in the grand bargain. what is a hundred your lesson from how bad unravels? >> evening would have been last year? they found a way to postpone everything. again, they can postpone lots of the problems, the postponement is 15 and appre
of medicare for everyone under 55 years old. our messages stick no carat. we don't have a forward vision of economic growth, how to create it or sustain it that's in the interest of the middle class and we paid a tremendous penalty for that over the course of this election. so the republican party as a demographic problem. it has a message problem. it has a policy problem which and then in the expect cushion of the campaigns it has a technology program. the obama campaign in 2012 was ten light years ahead from a technology perspective being tible identify voters, target voters, turn out voters. and republican party through this defeat is going to need to go through a cycle of invasion to catch up and pass the democrats in our ability to do that over the next couple of years. what i would say lastly is when you look at the republican party today on issues from gay marriage to immigration to education reform, republicans have always thriveed. we have embraced our small government, limited government and the principles of fed raism which have endured and served the country well for over two
, women receiving health care through medicaid, medicare, the federal employees health benefits program and the indian health service, so all of the federal health care programs. all have access to the care they need if they face pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. even women incarcerated in federal prison are protected in the case of rape, yet right now our women in the military are not granted the same access to abortion services in cases of rape or incest. to be clear, a general ban on abortion coverage remains for millions of women who receive health care through the federal government. however, in nearly all cases, these bands just for coverage if the life of the -- bans allow for coverage if the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. it is simply unfair that military women continue to be denied such reproductive health care. like so many of us in the chamber, i was so encouraged that during this year's markup of the ndaa, a strong bipartisan majority of my colleagues on the armed services committee, including chair levin and ranking
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19